| Subject: Not a tight fit (I like my analogies to be size 3's) |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 07/25/02 12:59am
In reply to:
Biff
's message, "A Guy Named Bob" on 07/24/02 9:14pm
>
>Well, let's say there's a guy named Bob, and only one
>guy named Bob. But for some reason, when you were
>introduced to him, you came to know him as Bill. Thing
>is, no matter how much you call him Bill, he's still
>Bob. But that's okay, because he's gotten used to you
>calling him Bill, so when you say "Hey, Bill," he
>answers, even though he's Bob.
I'm going to assume that Bob is supposed to be the Christian God in this example, correct me if I'm wrong.
Here is the problem, we can see Bob and say "Oh yeah, there is that guy named Bob; I know him." independantly of any sort of book, guidelines or anyone telling us some sort of description of what to expect should we see this Bob fellow. We might see someone and ask their name and they might reply, "Oh, it's Bob." and from there on out we will recognize that particular face as being Bob. Unless that person lied about their name, there won't be any question to us that that person happens to be Bob.
I've never met the Christian God on the street. I don't know if he is the only God that all other names point back to. Perhaps it is Allah that all names point back to as I suggested before. The best anyone can hope for when recognizing the Christian God is to take the characteristics the Bible mentions and sort of fit some "fabulous" experience that seems to vary from person to person into what they think is "God". However, it may well not be. Maybe it's Allah instead. How would we know the difference?
>
>This is where it gets confusing: then someone tells
>you there's someone named Bob, only they're not
>talking about the real Bob, just a guy down the street
>who they're sure is named Bob. So you're convinced
>that Bob is Bill and some other guy is Bob. Does that
>make Bob Bill and the other guy Bob? Of course not,
>only Bob is Bob. And we don't know who the other guy
>is, or if he even exists, for that matter.
I agree, if we had the absolute of knowing who Bob was in the first place. With the Christian God, we aren't even afforded that luxury.
>
>That's fair. And the story is practically written in
>point form, leaving many details up to the
>imagination. However, put yourself in Abram's place.
>If some voice out of nowhere tells you to leave behind
>the only life you've ever known, the only people
>you've ever lived with, and take your family, young
>children included, to some place that you don't even
>know exists, much less where it is or what will befall
>you on the way, would you go or would you seek
>counselling?
That depends on what I wanted the message to be in the particular plot I was writing.
>>Again, what about Allah or the Greek Gods? Doesn't
>>this argument fit equally well in those arenas?
>
>Again, is Bob Bob or is the other guy Bob?
Isn't quite the same.
>
>Of course not. In fact morals (being derived from the
>root more) are a necessary byproduct of societies.
>They are, in the purest sense, simply societal norms.
>But the word itself has come to be used in a slightly
>different way, not as the distintion between normal
>and deviant, but rather as between right and wrong. So
>we're left with a basic question: what is right and
>what is wrong, rather than what is normal or necessary
>for a society's survival. A society might survive
>quite well by treating women as second class citizens,
>but is it right? Chinese society survived by gunning
>down countless protestors in Tienamen (forgive the
>atrocious spelling) Square. Was it right?
Usually, moral is combined with the word "choice" or "decision" to denote the meaning you are implying. I would think should we decide to explore this issue further (which I'd be more than happy to discuss) that we should probably formulate another thread, for the issues that underlie these questions would be pretty intricate, and we'd need to establish some definitons and some underlying assumptions before we dove into the deep waters of that which is considered "right".
>
>To get an accurate picture, I think we'd have to go
>back far beyond when certain societies began to
>flourish. We would have to return to the very dawn of
>those societies and examine how they developed the
>norms they did. I don't think it's fair to assume that
>a few movers-and-shakers from a certain group of
>people sat down, came up with a moral code and snap
>your fingers there's a prosperous society.
>Unfortunately, the history books don't tend to go back
>that far, they only begin to discuss certain societies
>when they became dominant.
I don't assume that societies were formulated as a result of a moral code either. However, I think snapshots along the written history of socities lends a fairly good idea of how these things come about.
>
>And David Duke says alot of things God agrees with,
>does that make him moral?
Sure, but it doesn't make him "right" or God "right".
>Well, that's another discussion entirely. For the
>record, I disagree. I think that an objective reading
>of the Bible demonstrates that it is remarkably
>consistent throughout.
That depends on what you mean by consistant. Perhaps we can pursue this in later threads.
Damoclese
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 